Machine foe



UNITED STATES PATENT OFFICE.

I. G. WORTH, OF VASSALBORO, MAINE.

MACHINE FOR MANUFACTURING SHOE-PEGS.

Speccation of Letters Patent No. 21,104, dated August 8, 1858i.

To all whom t may concern:

Be it known that I, ISAIAH G. WORTH, of Vassalboro, in the county ofKennebec and State of Maine, have invented a new and useful or ImprovedMachine for Splitting Blocks of Wood into Shoe-Pegs; and I do herebydeclare that the same is fully described and represented in thefollowing specification and the accompanying drawings, of which- Figurel is an isometrical perspective view of it. Fig. 2 is a sketch or sideelevation of some of the principal operative parts as will behereinafter described.

The great advantage of my invention over the ordinary well knownpatented machine of Baldwin for manufacturing shoe-pegs is that it willperform about double the work in the same time and with much lessexpenditure of labor. I do not merely duplicate the Baldwin machine, butI so combine the operative parts with one table and so construct andoperate them as to not only cause the two feed rollers to rotate inopposite directions simultaneously with an intermittent motion, butallow the block after it has been cut or sliced by one roller to beturned around ninety degrees or thereabout, on the table, and movedlaterally thereon from one feed roller to the other so as to be againcarried under the operation of the cutting knife and to split at rightangles to the direction in which it was previously cut. Thus the tableaffords a means of supporting the strips of wood or the cut block, whilebeing turned around on it, and it also presents a slideway on which theblock may be moved toward the second fluted roller. Again, to one feedroller a mechanism is applied to turn it in one direction, while to theother roller a different operating mechanism or one to turn the saidroller in the opposite direction to which the first is to be revolvedbecomes necessary to the correct operation of my improved machine.

In operating with but one feed roller and a reciprocating knife the pegblock, after having been cut in one direction, has to be taken up or ofthe table and from its position in rear of the knife and carried aroundin front of such knife, all of which not only requires much time butconsiderable care and attention. It can readily be seen that with myimproved machine two operations will cut more wood into pegs in anygiven time than they can in a like period by using two of the Baldwinmachines. Practice clearly proves the advantage gained to be veryconsiderable.

In the drawings, A, denotes a table or bench carrying two sets H, H, ofstandards elevated entirely above its top surface and serving to guide acutting blade or knife, F, arranged on them as shown in the drawing.This knife turns on a journal at one end as shown at G, while at itsother end it is jointed to a connecting rod, E, carried by a bell crank,ci, of a horizontal shaft- B, which is situated at or near one end ofthe table and is supplied with an eccentric, B, which imparts motion toa pitman, T, jointed to a crank, U. Below and aside of the knife are twofluted feed rollers, L, L. They stand above the table and each has aratchet, K, fixed to one end of it as shown in the drawings. Thejournals of these feed rollers may be supported in boxes, I, I, havingmeans of adjusting them vertically, such being screws some of which areshown at N, N, in the drawings. One of the ratchets, K, is turned by adraw pawl, S, depending from a lever, P, embraced by a fork, R,extending from the side of the knife as shown in Figs. 1 and 2. Theelevation of the knife causes the draw pawl to turn the ratchet, and ofcourse revolve the feed roller thereof. The other ratchet, K, of theother feed roller is actuated by a draw pawl, WV, which is jointed to anarm, V, projecting from a horizontal shaft in whose outer end the arm orcrank, V, is situated. The pawl W, turns the feed roller with anintermittent motion in a direction the reverse of that in which theother feed roller is rotated. Each fluted roller should have a means ordevice for maintaining it in contact with the grooved peg block. Thismay be accomplished by the weight of the roller or by a weight or springproperly applied. One such application is shown in Fig. 2, where 0, is alever carrying a weight and so connected with the boxes of the feedroller by a rod, m, and a link as to effect the desired object.

By the rotary motion of the main shaft B, produced by any proper motor,the machine will be set in operation.

After a block has been passed under one feed roller and been split inone direction it may be moved laterally on the table and turned aroundso as to properly present it to the other roller, which will carry orfeed it again under the knife and in a direction opposite to that inwhich it first passed under the knife. At each blow of the knife twoblocks will be split when the machine is in operation instead of one asheretofore. Thus the machine not only performs double the amount of workin the same time as the single machine of Baldwin, but it will do muchmore.

I do not claim the combination of a reciprocating knife, a flutedfeeding roller, and a mechanism for so operating both as to feed a pegblock along with an intermittent motion and cut pegs from it, asozI amaware that such is the principle of thewell known Baldwin peg cuttingmachine, but

What I do claim is- An improved machine, consisting of a combination andarrangement essentially as specified of a vibrating knife (or itsequivalent), a bench or table, two fluted feed rollers, and mechanismfor imparting to such rollers intermittent feeding motions, in oppositedirections, the same being productive of advantage in cutting blocksinto pegs.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my signature.

ISAIAH G. WORTH. I/Vitnesses E. HOLMES, I. S. SAYWARD.

